Abstract : This article aims at demonstrating that the idea that the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by courts abides by some legal norms ― in other terms, that there exists some form of « Charter Application Law » ― is one of the greatest myths that pervade the science of Canadian public law. This case is made through the analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s case law. The article both identifies not only the internal inconsistencies of particular sets of reasons or the jurisprudence in general, but also, by taking into account the decisions where the Charter was applied with no given reasons, a gap between the Court’s (motivated) jurisprudence and its (effective) practice. In a merely incidental manner, the article then hints at a possible way of filling this gap: giving the Charter rights and freedoms some “Drittwirkung”.